Consequentialism in Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite; when do the Means truly justify the Ends?

Is self preservation a “good-enough” excuse to justify murder? In the capitalistic world that consumes many lower class families today, the struggle to find a job, get food on the table, and pay rent can often push individuals to committing actions they would normally deem ethically wrong. For the Kim family of four-time Oscar-winning movie Parasite by Bong Joon Ho, this reality is one they are more than familiar with. Living in poverty in South Korea, the Kims’ employ consequentialism in letting the ends justify the means of financial stability. However, as the family pushes beyond the boundaries of what society would deem ethically permissible, even going as far as murder, the audience starts to question the justification of the Kim family's actions. A film taking the audience through the daily life of an impoverished, desperate family with “good intentions” at heart, Parasite speaks wonders to understanding why the line between theoretical moral philosophy (in this context, consequentialism) and applying the moral principles in our daily lives, is blurry. With this, it is possible to conclude that applying moral principles in our daily lives cannot come without consideration of excusing conditions and of the context in which choices are being made—seeking flaws in the Kim family ultimately display of consequentialism. 

Within consequentialism, what is or isn’t ethical can be determined (especially in its utilitarian form), by which choice maximizes overall happiness and minimizes overall suffering. In Parasite, the Kim family’s version of “happiness” is simple; financial stability, food on the table, and a chance to be free from their poverty-filled lives. Living in a basement apartment, scavenging for free wifi, and folding pizza boxes for meager pay, the audience understands that, when the Kims make an “ethical” choice, it is for survival and money at the forefront. However, when Ki-woo (the son) is given the opportunity to tutor the daughter of the wealthy Park family, the Kims embark on a sequence of deceitful moves, replacing the Park family’s existing employees with each family member so everyone could have a job. The means the Kim family takes in order to get these jobs is one filled with lies and, according to virtue ethics, immorality. And yet, the Kim family believes their actions to be justified, as, if lying leads to more income and improves their collective well-being, then their actions are morally correct. 

However, when the ends justify the means, bystanders tend to get into harm's way. For instance, when Ki-Jung (daughter) falsely diagnosed the child of the Park family as needing art therapy so she could be hired, the previous art teacher was fired. Similarly, knowing that the Park family’s longtime housekeeper was deadly allergic to peaches, the Kim family exploited her allergy and ultimately lied about the housekeeper having tuberculosis to get her kicked out. The moral wrongfulness of these actions, although clearly causing harm, are ignored by the Kims due to these actions greatly benefiting themselves. Comparing how consequentialism is used by the Kims in “real life”,to the idealistic consequentialism learned in class, one can understand that consequentialism in real life is not measured for all or idealistic, but rather short-sighted and survival-driven. The Kims never intend to physically harm the Parks or directly steal from them, but to use coercion and offer fake legitimate services in order to get what they wanted. Since the Kims believe that the Park’s have more than enough wealth and “happiness”, they believe that taking a portion of their wealth through deceit wasn’t exactly wrong, especially living in a society where odds are stacked against the poor. 

Yet, the question still remains; to what extent does consequentialism hold in justifying one’s actions in the real world? Throughout Parasite, the audience observes how the Kim family’s schemes start to spiral out of control with the discovery of a hidden bunker in the Park’s house that leads to violence, as well as the chaotic ending birthday party that left Mr Kim with Mr Park’s blood on his hands. When Mr Kim murders Mr Park, it is no more out of survival or poverty or self-preservation, but rather an impulsive, emotional move, perhaps due to jealousy of Mr Park's wealth and a lifetime of humiliation. The ending of Parasite represents acceptance from the Kim family for their wrong doings and the consequentialist logic breaking down, suggesting that actions solely based on outcomes may lead to moral collapse when the line between justifiable and immoral becomes blurred. 

Despite previously understanding how the Kim family’s “harmless” actions escalated into worse consequences, there may still be philosophical grounds for moral leniency given excusing conditions such as compulsion and trying. Firstly, the Kim family did not choose to be poor and would probably not idealistically choose to act in the way they did; rather they were acting under the compulsion of poverty that compels them to exploit opportunities because they have no other option to survive. Additionally, despite consequentialism putting much emphasis on outcomes, intentions are still considered when judging a moral agent. While committing some immoral actions, the Kims still tried their best to minimize harm and maintain boundaries of professionalism. Towards the end of the movie, Ki-woo even expresses regret, that he hopes to buy the Park house and restore honour to his family through honesty. Thus, we understand that Kims’ downfall wasn’t due to a lack of morality or effort to be moral, but due to structural reasons and classism that is embedded into the classist South Korean systems they became victims to. 

In conclusion, the Kim family’s application of the moral principles outlined by consequentialism is shaped by the belief that the ends of escaping poverty and achieving financial stability, justify the means. Although many of the decisions the Kims make are rooted not in malice but in desperation and excusing conditions, Parasite’s ending proves that a purely consequentialist approach cannot succeed in real life, since, at the end of the day, there are some situations in which no one can escape the consequences.